Livy XXI

Latin Learning Latin
1

I’ve read the first chapter. A bit tough, but nothing impenetrable; however, I’m not very confident beginning it and I have a few questions.

In parte operis mei licet mihi praefari, quod in principio summae totius professi plerique sunt rerum scriptores, bellum maxime omnium memorabile quae unquam gesta sint me scripturum, quod Hannibale duce Carthaginienses cum populo Romano gessere.

(“In this part of my work I may state first, which in the beginning of the highest whole many writers of things claimed, that the most memorable war of all that was ever waged is what I shall write, which was waged with Hannibal as the leader of the Carthaginians against the Roman people.”)

I don’t get the plurals “sint”, and “gessere” (“gesta” obviously goes with the understood “bella”); also, “sint me scripturum” I take it is a future periphrastic but the reason for the subjunctive is not immediately obvious (it would probably help to know the reason for plural). The second clause is convoluted.

Nam neque ualidiores opibus ullae inter se ciuitates gentesque contulerunt arma neque his ipsis tantum unquam uirium aut roboris fuit.

(“For no states or peoples stronger in resources taken up arms against each other, nor any ever to which had been such strength and vigor.”)

I think I have a sketchy idea of the sense but I’m not sure. The “his ipsis” is tripping me up, I think.

Fama est etiam Hannibalem annorum ferme nouem, pueriliter blandientem patri Hamilcari ut duceretur in Hispaniam, cum perfecto Africo bello exercitum eo traiecturus sacrificaret, altaribus admotum tactis sacris iure iurando adactum se cum primum posset hostem fore populo Romano.

(“Report has it that Hannibal at around the age of nine, boyishly coaxed by his father Hamilcar to be led to Spain, where when the African war was finished his army crossed over to make a sacrifice, where he was moved to touch the sacred altars and make an oath that he would as soon as possible be an enemy to the Roman people.”)

My main question is with “traiecturus”. I imagine it goes with “exercitus” but it would be in past time if it’s done before the sacrifice was made. Also “patri Hamilcari” I don’t get why is in the dative; it would seem to require an ablative of agent.

Obviously if I’ve made any blunders let me know.

2

In parte operis mei licet mihi praefari, quod in principio summae totius professi plerique sunt rerum scriptores, bellum maxime omnium memorabile quae unquam gesta sint me scripturum, quod Hannibale duce Carthaginienses cum populo Romano gessere.

in principio summae totius - at the beginning of the whole work: L. is wrting a preface to a section of his work; his point is that usually the assertion that the war is the greatest of all time comes at the beginning of most historians’ works (e.g., Thucydides)

rerum scriptores - historians

omnium . . . quae unquam gesta sint - the subjunctive can be explained as a relative clause in indirect discourse with praefari . . . me scripturum “of all which have ever been waged” gesta sint is perfect subjunctive passive.

quod Hannibale duce Carthaginienses cum populo Romano gessere - which the Carthaginians with Hannibal as general waged with the Roman people

Hannibale duce is ablative absolute; Carthaginienses is the subject of gessere (=gesserunt).

3

Fama est etiam Hannibalem annorum ferme nouem, pueriliter blandientem patri Hamilcari ut duceretur in Hispaniam, cum perfecto Africo bello exercitum eo traiecturus sacrificaret, altaribus admotum tactis sacris iure iurando adactum se cum primum posset hostem fore populo Romano.

blandientem - active present participle of a deponent verb, blandior, which can take a dative complement: the boy is coaxing his father to take him along to Spain.

cum perfecto Africo bello exercitum eo traiecturus sacrificaret - traiecturus is a future participle: "when he [Hamilcar], after the African war was finished, about to transport the army over there [to Spain], was sacrificing . . . “, i.e., when, after the African war, Hmilcar was sacrificing before transporting the army over to Spain . . .”

The subject of the indirect discourse is of course Hannibalem. The main verb is adactum [esse].

Modifying Hannibalem are the participles blandientem and, later in the clause, admotum.

The cum clause is circumstantial to blandientem.

tactis sacris is an ablative absolute. Livy does not need to tell us who moves Hannibal to the altar, nor who is touching the sacraments: we know that Hamilcar moves Hannibal to the altar and that Hannibal is the touching the sacraments.

Putting the whole sentence together:

“Report has it that Hannibal, at around the age of nine, childishly coaxing his father Hamilcar to be taken to Spain, when after the end of the African war Hamilcar was sacrificing before transporting the army there, having been moved to the altar [presumably by Hamilcar], the sacraments being touched, was caused to make an oath that he would be an enemy of the Roman people as soon as he could.”

4

In English: “Report has it that Hannibal, at around the age of nine, was childishly coaxing his father Hamilcar to take him along to Spain as Hamilcar was sacrificing before transporting the army there after the end of the African war. Hamilcar moved Hannibal to the altar, and Hannibal was obliged to swear, as he touched the sacraments, that he would be the enemy of the Roman people as soon as he could.”

This compression and brevity is characteristic of Livy’s style. He moves the narration forward briskly in lengthy periods towards the verb, relying on participles and ablative absolutes to fill in the details, and leaving out pronouns where the antecedents would be obvious. Very different from Cicero.

Asinius Pollio (of the 4th Eclogue) accused Livy, who was from Padua, of Patavinitas, which supposedly meant some sort of provincialism. Livy retorted by accusing Pollio of asininitas

5

Nam neque ualidiores opibus ullae inter se ciuitates gentesque contulerunt arma neque his ipsis tantum unquam uirium aut roboris fuit.

The first part is correct: “For no states or peoples stronger in resources taken up arms against each other”

neque his ipsis tantum unquam uirium aut roboris fuit – his ipsis is dative “of possession.”

“Nor did they themselves [i.e., the Carthaginians and the Romans] ever have as much manpower or strength.”

6

Thanks! I’ll have to digest this (in particular the sentence about Hannibal in Spain – thanks for the analysis) more fully when I get home. Undoubtedly it will get easier once I’m more used to the style.

Not recognizing “Carthaginienses” was out of sheer laziness. Sorry about that.

7

One more sentence that I caught looking it over again quickly:

Angebant ingentis spiritus uirum Sicilia Sardiniaque amissae: nam et Siciliam nimis celeri desperatione rerum concessam et Sardiniam inter motum Africae fraude Romanorum, stipendio etiam insuper imposito, interceptam.

(“Huge spirits rankled (the man?) (because?) Sicily and Sardinia (were) lost: for Sicily was conceded with too-quick desperation of matters, and Sardinia during the turmoil of Africa was snatched away by deceit by the Romans, with even an additional duty imposed.”)

I had read “uirum” as “uirium” before (“huge spirits of strength rankled, as etc”) but it turns out it’s the seemingly nonsensical “uirum”. Also I assume “ingentis spiritus” is nominative plural.

8

Angebant ingentis spiritus uirum Sicilia Sardiniaque amissae: nam et Siciliam nimis celeri desperatione rerum concessam et Sardiniam inter motum Africae fraude Romanorum, stipendio etiam insuper imposito, interceptam.

ingentis spiritus – this can’t be nominative plural. ingentes would be nom. plur. It could be acc. plur. but in fact it’s gen. sing., genitive “of description”, depending on uirum, which is acc. sing., the object of angebant.

The subject is Sicilia Sardiniaque amissae, a particularly idiomatic Latin way of expressing “the loss of Sicily and Sardinia.”

Allen & Greenough 497:

  1. A noun and a passive participle are often so united that the participle and not the noun contains the main idea:—1

ante conditam condendamve urbem (Liv. Pref.), before the city was built or building.
“illī lībertātem imminūtam cīvium Rōmānōrum nōn tulērunt; vōs ēreptam vītam neglegētis ” (Manil. 11) , they did not endure the infringement of the citizens’ liberty; will you disregard the destruction of their lives?
“post nātōs hominēs ” (Brut. 224) , since the creation of man.
“iam ā conditā urbe ” (Phil. 3.9) , even from the founding of the city.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=AG+497&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001

This is very Livian, contributing to the brisk compression of his narrative.

"The loss of Sicily and Sardinia rankled the man of enormous boldness/courage . . . "

What follows is indirect discourse representing Hannibal’s view of the situation, using perfect infinitives with esse omitted (as it often is):

“for Sicily [he thought] had been given up by too hasty despair of the situation, and Sardinia had been captured during the African tumult [was this the rebellion of the mercenaries?] by the deceit of the Romans, and tribute had even been imposed, to boot.”

Again, this is typical of Livy. He doesn’t introduce the indirect discourse with a verb of thinking–he merely launches into the acc. + infinitive construction signaling that he’s reporting what was going through Hamilcar’s mind.

Edited to change the penultimate word from “Hannibal’s” to “Hamilcar’s.”

9

I actually did realize the correct reading of “angebant ingentis spiritus” as well as “his ipsis tantum unquam uirium aut roboris fuit” but only after posting the incorrect versions and not being able to fix them in time. I recognized the indirect discourse in “Sardiniam … interceptam” but I didn’t think through why it would have been. I didn’t, however, recognize the indirect discourse in the opening sentence, either, and didn’t follow the “fama est” portion to the end as indirect discourse – I usually think of that as opening with a verb rather than the phrase “report was that…”. If there’s something to take away from the first chapter it’s that I eventually did get those two sentences and I wasn’t too too wildly off on the others; the other thing to take away is that I must pay more attention and stop making careless mistakes. “Different from Cicero” is right. Tomorrow I’ll take more time with the reading and set aside the book and mull over difficult portions before jumping on here after getting stuck. Thank you very much for your “preternatural patience”, as mwh put it, and for helping illuminate Livy’s style, with which after getting more used to I’m sure I’ll do better.

The unrest in Africa was indeed of the mercenaries.

10

I should mention that the narrative devices noted above (e.g., acc. + inf. without speech/thought verb) are not exclusive to Livy–other historians such as Tacitus, and other writers, use these, too. Tacitus and Sallust are even more elliptical and compressed than Livy, sometimes, or even often, to the point of obscurity, and deliberately so (in imitation of Thucydidean inconcinnity). Livy is almost always clear and flows or rather marches along steadily, but he packs a lot of information into a single sentence.

11

I think I did somewhat better with chapter 2.

His anxius curis ita se Africo bello quod fuit sub recentem Romanam pacem per quinque annos, ita deinde nouem annis in Hispania augendo Punico imperio gessit ut appareret maius cum quam quod gereret agitare in animo bellum et, si diutius uixisset, Hamilcare duce Poenos arma Italiae inlaturos fuisse qui Hannibalis ductu intulerunt.

(“(Hamilcar) was so troubled by these concerns that during the African war, which was from the peace with the Romans five years in duration, even afterwards nine years in Spain (while) he waged war to add to the Carthaginian empire (it seemed) that the war he pondered was greater than the war he waged and, if he had lived longer, with Hamilcar as general the Carthaginians would have taken up arms against Italy as they did under Hannibal’s generalship.”)

“The war he pondered” being that against the Romans. I believe “Hamilcare duce Poenos … inlaturos fuisse” are indirect discourse but that would be reflecting his thoughts, as with “Sardiniam interceptam”? I can find no other reason for it.

Ceterum nihilo ei pax tutior fuit; barbarus eum quidam palam ob iram interfecti ab eo domini obtruncat; comprensus ab circumstantibus haud alio quam si euasisset uoltu, tormentis quoque cum laceraretur, eo fuit habitu oris ut superante laetitia dolores ridentis etiam speciem praebuerit.

(“But peace was no safer to (Hasdrubal): a barbarian openly killed him out of anger of his master (being) slain by (Hasdrubal); arrested by those standing around (not at all/for no other reason? than that he had evaded them with his face), and also when he was mangled with tortures, with the appearance of his face he presented the appearance of even laughing at the pains, overcome with joy.”)

This is a bit rougher, I think; if the slave killed Hasdrubal openly and was arrested by those around him he would have had a lot more evidence against him than just looking shifty so we can safely assume that that part is wrong, but the rest seems more or less the right idea; I’m probably missing a lot unable to figure out the “haud alio quam” part.

I went about reading this as shorter but more frequent looks at the book and I think it helped, though I’ll have to reserve judgment until I find out how well I did.

12

More later, but very quickly, here is a breakdown of the structure of the first sentence:

His anxius curis,

ita se Africo bello quod fuit sub recentem Romanam pacem per quinque annos [gessit],

ita [se] deinde nouem annis in Hispania augendo Punico imperio gessit

ut appareret

maius eum [note typo: eum not cum] quam quod gereret agitare in animo bellum

et, si diutius uixisset, Hamilcare duce Poenos arma Italiae inlaturos fuisse qui Hannibalis ductu intulerunt.

se gessit – “he conducted himself”

gessit is understood at the end of the first ita clause; se is understood after ita in the second ita clause. se and gessit, the object and verb framing both clauses, don’t need to be repeated because the repetition of ita makes the parallel structure clear. se sets up the expectation of a verb, which isn’t resolved until we reach gessit; ita makes it clear that what follows is parallel to the preceding ita clause and will share a verb with it. p_er quinque annos_, followed chiastically by deinde nouem annis, reinforces the expectation of parallelism. This is very elegant, almost poetic, Latin–we’ve seen similar structures in Vergil and also in Cicero. You can see how he uses the resources of Latin to articulate the sentence clearly despite the long gap between se and gessit.

Then a result clause with ut follows, anticipated by the repeated ita’s.

ut appareret maius eum quam quod gereret agitare in animo bellum

The main verb of the acc. + inf. depending on appareret is agitare [in animo]. The object of agitare is bellum. quam quod gereret is dependent on bellum. You had this the other way around, with agitare in animo embedded in a relative clause.

Why don’t you take another stab at translating the sentence?

13

Troubled by these concerns, Hamilcar so conducted himself in the African war, which lasted for five years after the Roman peace, he so conducted himself for nine years in Spain afterwards, to increase the Punic empire, that it appeared he more pondered the war in his mind than waged it, and (it seemed) that if he had lived longer, the Carthaginians with Hamilcar as general would have taken up arms against Italy as, with the generalship of Hannibal, they did.

Tentative shot.

14

A few corrections:

he so conducted himself for nine years in Spain afterwards in increasing/expanding the Punic empire,

that it appeared he was pondering in his mind a greater war [maius . . . bellum] than the one he was waging [quam quod gereret]

“the Carthaginians with Hamilcar as general would have taken up arms against Italy as, with the generalship of Hannibal, they did.” Literally qui Hannibalis ductu intulerunt is a relative clause modifying Poenos, but your translation gets at the sense of the Latin and works better in English that a literal translation, because you can put the qui clause at the end.

A small points of grammar to note: In the clauses that complement appareret, there are two relative clauses: quod gereret and qui . . . intulerunt. gereret is subjunctive because it is part of the thought represented by appareret; intulerunt is indicative because it’s a statement of fact independent of the thought.

15

Ceterum nihilo ei pax tutior fuit; barbarus eum quidam palam ob iram interfecti ab eo domini obtruncat; comprensus ab circumstantibus haud alio quam si euasisset uoltu, tormentis quoque cum laceraretur, eo fuit habitu oris ut superante laetitia dolores ridentis etiam speciem praebuerit.

"But peace was no safer to (Hasdrubal):

a certain barbarian openly killed him out of anger for his [ab eo – Hasdrubal’s] killing of his [the slave’s, of course; no need to specify] master;

arrested by those standing around with a facial expression no different [haud alio . . . uoltu – abl. of description] than if he had escaped,

when he was also mangled by torture,

he was of such a demeanor [habitu oris – abl. of description] that,

joy overcoming pain[s] [superante laetitia dolores – abl. abs.], he even presented the appearance of a [man] laughing."

Note this idiomatic Latin expression: iram interfecti . . . domini – “objective” genitive; interfecti domini is like Sicilia Sardiniaque amissae above.

16

This was an example of why not to try to brush up on your Latin on short breaks at work. Deleted.

17

eo modifies habitu oris – I translate it “such”. Literally, "he was of that demeanor [such] that . . . "

“why the perfect subjunctive ‘praebuerit’? It’s a purpose clause” No, as you subsequently realized, it’s a result clause.

A&G 485c:

In clauses of Result, the Perfect Subjunctive is regularly (the Present rarely) used after secondary tenses:—1. “Hortēnsius ārdēbat dīcendī cupiditāte sīc ut in nūllō umquam flagrantius studium vīderim” (Brut. 302) , Hortensius was so hot with desire of speaking that I have never seen a more burning ardor in any man.
2.“[Siciliam Verrēs] per triennium ita vexāvit ac perdidit ut ea restituī in antīquum statum nūllō modō possit” (Verr. 1.12) , for three years Verres so racked and ruined Sicily that she can in no way be restored to her former state. [Here the Present describes a state of things actually existing.]
3.“videor esse cōnsecūtus ut nōn possit Dolābella in Ītaliam pervenīre ” (Fam. 12.14.2) , I seem to have brought it about that Dolabella cannot come into Italy.

[*] Note 1.–This construction emphasizes the result; the regular sequence of tenses would subordinate it.

[*] Note 2.–There is a special fondness for the Perfect Subjunctive to represent a Perfect Indicative:—

  1. “Thorius erat ita nōn superstitiōsus ut illa plūrimain suā et sacrificia et fāna contemneret; ita nōn timidus ad mortem ut in aciē sit ob rem pūblicam interfectus” (Fin. 2.63) , Thorius was so little superstitious that he despised [contemnēbat] the many sacrifices and shrines in his country; so little timorous about death that he was killed [interfectus est] in battle, in defence of the state.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001%3Apart%3D2%3Asection%3D10%3Asubsection%3D3%3Asmythp%3D485

The result is expressed by a perfect subjunctive verb just as it would be by a perfect indicative verb in an independent clause.

Addendum: A&G are not very helpful in explicating the difference between the imperfect and the perfect subjunctive in result clauses following historical tenses. The point that I think they fail to convey is that such clauses simply don’t follow the same rules for sequence of tenses as purpose clauses or indirect discourse. The distinction is subtle. The imperfect is generally used when the focus is on the natural tendency of the result clause to follow from the main clause, without necessarily implying that the result did occur, leaving it to context to determine whether it did occur. The perfect is used when the focus, as here, is on the fact that the result actually occurred, as a historical fact. Woodcock, A New Latin Syntax (Cambridge, Mass. 1958), at p. 122, sec. 164, discusses this. He also notes that sometimes the imperfect is used to indicate the progressive nature of a result that actually occurred.

18

Deleted.

19

Don’t need any outright help yet, just looking for guidance with chapter 3. In the first sentence it seems as though Hasdrubal is dead and Hannibal is, if not appointed, at least favored to take his place. The rest of the chapter is an episode in the Carthaginian Senate. It seems like a flashback: Hasdrubal accersierat (pluperfect) hunc uixdum puberem (i.e. Hannibal). But Hanno’s speech seems to argue against Hannibal’s assuming command, wary of a hereditary generalship. I don’t think Hasdrubal is present, but : “Et aequum postulare uidetur, Hasdrubal, et ego tamen non censeo quod petit tribuendum.” (“And it seems right to demand, Hasdrubal, yet I nevertheless do not propose yielding what he seeks.”). “Petit” is in the third person but “Hasdrubal” seems like direct address, unless it is simply the subject of “petit”, commas be damned. “Hasdrubal” is used in the next sentence but there it’s clear it’s the third person. “Hunc uixdum puberem Hasdrubal litteris ad se accersierat, actaque res etiam in senatu fuerat” – “Hasdrubal had summoned him, scarcely a boy, by a letter to him, and a thing had even been done in the Senate (an action had even been done in the Senate?)”.

I want to try to figure this out for myself, but I’m not sure of a few things and I need context. I’m not certain about the first sentence either but I’ll come back to all this.

20

Hasdrubal is dead; the soldiers and the people have proclaimed the young Hannibal as general, but Hanno delivers a speech in the Carthaginian senate opposing his appointment–with innuendos about improper relationships between Hamilcar and Hasdrubal and then Hasdrubal and Hannibal.

We’re told that Hasdrubal had sent for (accersierat, pluperfect) Hannibal from Carthage to Spain before Hasdrubal died.

Walsh’s notes should be helpful in sorting out the sequence of events and also pointing out that Livy’s account is a complete fabrication imposing Roman political institutions on Carthage and reflecting Roman concerns.